825
points
chaps
Joined 4,613 karma
- Friend, with respect, these "simple challenge"s really start to add up very quickly, especially after edge cases.
Highly recommend you read this and similar posts: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-...
- Hah no kidding. I tried just, "bill_gates" --
what's the point of this thing...?{ "username": "bill_gates", "isReserved": false, "isDeleted": false, "categories": [] } - Frankly, I'm not sure why explaining it (or the explanation) makes the situation any better.
FWIW, I'm the kind of weirdo who gets annoyed by having to add a new noscript rule for every federated instance. So I'm not exactly Matrix's target audience.
- "If you're particularly concerned about metadata footprint, you can run your own servers in whatever network environment you feel like"
You're not going to win any long-term support with this attitude, even if you're technically right. Like, if we're still in this "why doesn't the pleb just become a part time sysadmin" way of thinking, it's hard to think it's not just DoA.
- Not directly an answer to your question, but installed Shotspotter locations are generally "not shared with police" and installations are done in a way where the location is obfuscated away from the police/city through Shotspotter contractors. It's not actually true that the device locations aren't shared with the police, but shotspotter/police testimonies in shotspotter cases say so anyway.
- Here's the video for interested folk:
This is not what Flock seeks to curb.> but it's also bad when you see people speeding around schools, rolling through stop signs, and running red lights.- I've looked at many, many criminal court cases with these questions in mind and it really isn't that simple in court. Judges and prosecutors very often and truly don't give a fuck. Or the prosecution will just nolle the case if issues of facts come up. That happens with a lot of technology oriented cases, eg shotspotter and stingrays, where 4a issues are dropped. See [1].
Please realize that defense counsel is fighting an uphill battle while their client is stuck in pretrial limbo. The issue of parallel construction, with some exception, will not really come up. As many lawyers have told me -- what matters to them is getting their client out of jail/pretrial. And because that's the concern over all else, the publicly available information about these abuses simply don't come up in the public eye. So these problems go and go and go.
Really, a lot of what you hope happens in court just... really fucking doesn't. All that'll happen is people will be in jail longer because so many people were arrested under 4a-violating arrests and the defense attorneys get more work load.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2290703-chicago-pd-f...
- Friend, you should try actually submitting some FOIA requests or bumping up against the "open data" stuff out there. What you're suggesting works in a perfect world where government agencies actually want to disclose information. They do not. Saying this as someone who's been in constant FOIA litigation for ten years.
- I'm with you on shooting for the moon, but there are many, many, many little wins that need to happen before then. But it's not work that'll happen on its own. If you want to have your hand in poking at the problem, the best place to start is to start submitting FOIA requests to the places you'd want disclosure from and hold them accountable (ie, sue them) when they inevitably don't give you what they're legally required to give.
- That's even harder than FOIA.
- Okay now, how do you show that it's not being abused? FOIA? Good luck.
- You're misreading my post with Coinbase-tinted glasses. My post is about the building that Coinbase operated out of. Not Coinbase itself.
- Here's the top of a conversation I had with him, starting with me:
His response:Thanks for the thought out response. I agreed with just about everything you said, which makes this whole situation that much more frustrating. On one side, you're right and you're trying to create substantive discussion, which their sensationalist reporting often rubs against. On the other hand, [dead] in its current state is neither informative nor allows for substantive conversation about why it's [dead]. Ironically, the action of [dead]'ing looks like a malicious response from you and your colleagues -- something that's still hard for me to shake, especially considering who owns HN and who's within its network. Or at the very least, it looks malicious in the face of potentially simple UX changes.Yes, I hear those frustrations and they all make sense. I'm afraid I'm pessimistic, though (having been at this job for many years) about the possibility of a fuller explanation ever clearing up these perceptions—for example the perception about "who owns HN and who's within its network" being the main factor in what gets marked as [dead] on the site. In my experience, (some) people are going to believe that, regardless of anything we say or do. A lot of people on the internet are primed to perceive maliciousness and, sadly, I don't think we have the power to change that. I also don't think it's possible to "promote substantive discussion about why [a post' is dead" because that sort of meta-talk invariably becomes bogged down and self-referential. In my experience, such discussions don't lead anywhere productive, they just generate more and more of the same. The moderation burden such meta-discussions impose is high, because if we don't answer and explain, our absence gets taken to mean that we're hiding something and/or that whatever people are accusing us of must be true. That's potentially disastrous for HN because it means that those moderation resources get sucked away from things that matter more for the quality of the site. But I don't want to come across as too dismissive! I appreciate your openness and your suggestions and will think further about them.
You're literally requiring people to buy specific cryptocurrencies to buy your community vouchers.